JUDGMENT :

Sonia Gokani, J.

1. The Corpus is brought before us today. She although has produced the affidavit-in-reply stating therein that the applicant had abducted her with false promises and eventually when her father came to know about this marriage she has realised that she cannot stay together. They have not stayed together till date and she has also chosen not to stay with him in future also. Her statement dated 2nd March, 2022 before the police has not been given by her and it is her decision to be with her family to upkeep the dignity and honour and respect of her family.

2. When we inquired from her, her version was completely different than what she has stated in her affidavit-in-reply. She agreed that she was scared and apprehensive of the strong reactions of the family and that had dithered her from telling the truth.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Anvesh Vyas appearing for the parents of the Corpus has explained to this Court that she had been given to understand as to what were the contents of the affidavit and on realising the same, she has chosen to sign the affidavit. She does not dispute that fact. She is a graduate and 25 years of age.

3.1. However, we can notice that she is completely petrified and does not have any courage to resist her family, more particularly, the father and the brother who accompanied her. We could also notice the overreactions on the part of the brother who otherwise is pursing his M.Sc. We have restrained ourselves of not writing anything further nor to initiate any actions against him. Considering this to be a momentary reaction to the possible shock the family might have received after her having sworn the affidavit where we can very well appreciate her not having truly disclosed her mind to her family until she was before the Court from where she can join her husband without once again going back to her parents.

4. As she has already married to the petitioner and the registration of the marriage has taken place on 24.5.2021, we have ascertained about the previous marriage of the petitioner, the divorce has already taken place customarily. His parents are also here and they have confirmed that he needed to pay permanent alimony in presence of the caste leaders which was Rs.1 lakh and the relationship of the petitioner with the Corpus was the reason why the divorce of the petitioner took place.

5. We also on the request of learned advocate Mr. Vyas met the caste leader who had accompanied the father and he has ensured the Court that no untoward incident is likely to happen. However, for the sake of young couple, on noticing the strong reactions of the family, in the presence of the Court also, we deem it appropriate to direct protection to the couple for the period of four weeks. The Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, shall appropriately direct the same and he shall before the end of four weeks shall take a call and decide as to whether there will be requirement of further protection in this case.

6. We would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibhai Chandaragi B. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 360, where it considered the right to marry person of one's choice an integral part of Article 21. It is construed as an autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage is integral to the dignity of the individual.

"10. Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners which, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society where caste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce by such inter marriage but in the meantime these youngsters face threats from the elders and the Courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters.

11. We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adu